21stamps
Well-Known Member
This would be amazing if it ends up being the case. Above my pay grade to figure out the logistics..but I would love to know how it could be done. That would be a game changer for sure.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Lets talk water parks and their future
- Thread starter roj2323
- Start date
This would be amazing if it ends up being the case. Above my pay grade to figure out the logistics..but I would love to know how it could be done. That would be a game changer for sure.
Why are they landlocked? Looking at Google Maps, it seems both have tons of potential space to expand into (unless they're declared wetlands, but Disney's reallocated those before). Unless you mean from a theming perspective, in that it might be tough to add onto the existing mountains of both?
Is there something I'm missing?
Biff215
Well-Known Member
No, I agree. They've shown willingness at TL to build apart from the main structure, though it would be more challenging at BB. It can certainly be done, but as stated above, the ambition is clearly what's lacking, not demand or space.
cheezbat
Well-Known Member
The parks are far from landlocked. It's all about getting creative. I have visited far smaller watermarks with way more slides and attractions. It all comes down to Disney having no ambition and seeing no reason to spend money when people come anyway. I truly hope Volcano Bay takes the place as top waterpark just to show Disney how it's done. The WDW waterparks NEED more slides to spread out the crowds during the busy months. It gets way too crowded and uncomfortable and wait times get too crazy.
cjack300zx
Well-Known Member
It looks USO is going to hit it out of the park with volcano bay! Should disney be worried, I think they should be a little worried that this will entice more people to stay at the USO hotels.The flex ticket is a pretty good deal and volcano bay being added to it will make it even better. We always go to BB when we stay at disney, there is nothing like a water park on a 90+ day in Florida
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I suppose that's the actual game-changer- Universal getting closer and closer to their dream of being their own self-contained destination resort.
A viable one, I mean. One that people could happily spend 4 days at and have enough to do.
Volcano Bay could actually be a very, very average waterpark and still change the landscape quite a bit- as soon as Universal has enough offerings to stop being a 2-day add-on to a family's Disney vacation, the two company's relationship will go from an uneasy symbiosis to true competition.
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
Now
, that's cool looking!Shame they never brought this idea back from the Dead...More about it here..
http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief1/b/jim_hill/archive/2005/01/06/522.aspx
Is this whole post sarcasm?
Disney world and water parks out of space?
Universal with a ton of land?
Family raft ride isn't close to the reef tank, they are building it on an expansion pad and closing the reef as a cost cutting measure (to balance out the raft ride essentially)
Please show me where you'd like TL and BB to expand to? They look pretty locked in there don't they. If you had read my post in context, you would have realized that I was referring to their water park. But you were a bit too quick to jump on your soap box.
The parks don't really need to get larger but some of the older slides could stand to be replaced or reconfigured and walkways could stand to be replaced, and or just upgraded to a wider configuration that also stands above the sand. There's really quite a long list of things I'd change which is why I only visit once every couple of years even when I live close by.
DDLand
Well-Known Member
I feel like this is a questionable statement at best. Disney has shipped remarkable products that resemble their concept art, most recently at Shanghai and the newly remade Norway. Both Walt Disney Company and Universal Creative will work in a concept art realm where there are no financial constraints, perfect weather, idealized back of houses, perfect conditions, and use artistic license where they see fit.
It goes both ways. I'm not sure how you can say one is more guilty of this than the other.
Can you spot the difference between these two images?
Hint, one is a CGI image and one is real.
(Correct me if I'm wrong about these two images matching up, they look very very similar so I'm assuming that this is what ended up being built. If not I'll be happy to pull it)
The real one is undoubtably impressive. I'm not slamming it, but the other one is clearly not of this world. It looks even cooler.
I'm expecting the difference between the Volcano Bay video and reality to be about the difference between those two Kong statues. I do expect Volcano bay, especially it's water/lava fall, to be stunning.
sonoma15
Well-Known Member
Those actually look pretty dang similar though if you see it from the right angle...
No Name
Well-Known Member
I don't think Volcana Bay will really "set a new standard." Certain slides may be impressive but most are clearly just regular slides with regular bright colors, nothing increadibky innovative there. Honestly, I find it a bit disappointing, because I was really hoping for something mindblowing. Something unique.
But now I am expecting something on the level of Blizzard Beach and Typhoon lagoon, which is still good. And I'll be pleasantly surprised if it turns out to be above what I am expecting.
But now I am expecting something on the level of Blizzard Beach and Typhoon lagoon, which is still good. And I'll be pleasantly surprised if it turns out to be above what I am expecting.
Biff215
Well-Known Member
I'd still argue that there's space there to expand, it's just a matter of making it fit thematically. Will be interesting to see how the new raft ride at TL turns out. While I don't think CnG was hidden as well as the original attractions, it still works there thanks to the trees. As I said earlier, BB might be tougher from that standpoint, but both are far from out of space.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Diminishing returns... volatility. The further you look into the future, the less reliable the data is.
No one would like a system that would spaz and tell you the wait is 2hrs... no its right now.. go.. next wait is 45mins.. oh now its 15.. etc
The more you try to lock into.. the more features and tools you need to give people to back out, manipulate, shift, etc.
flynnibus
Premium Member
TL has a ton of room... it could grow multiple X factors. BB is backed in on two sides, but not the others.
Parking lots and back of house do not make you land-locked.. you move those
TL has a ton of room... it could grow multiple X factors. BB is backed in on two sides, but not the others.
Parking lots and back of house do not make you land-locked.. you move those
Then how will everyone here count the number of unfilled parking spaces and get a true representation of attendance?
I'm confused, are you trying to prove my point? The Kong entrances look extremely similar- and that's you trying to find one that looks different... and it still doesn't.
The accurate Frozen concept art also came during construction- which is exactly what I said- that concept art during construction (like Uni always does) is accurate because it's further along in the process. Concept art given preplanning and preconstruction (like Disney almost always does) is not accurate.
And Shanghai concept art matching up? Haha. Ok
When I look at Disney concept art, I know it will change every single time if it is given to us pre-construction. New fantasyland, Everest, the list goes on.
When I look at Universal concept art, it is almost a mirror image- what you see is what you'll get, down to the color of the slides.
Again- This isn't me bashing Disney- I'm just saying their concept art is rarely accurate because they release it before construction. If and when they released concept art during construction, it is typically accurate. It's simply a matter of Disney releasing concept art way sooner than Uni. Much like the mostly false perception of Uni building so much faster than Disney is because Uni announces during construction and Disney announces in planning stages. Take off your Mickey ears and be objective please.
Lol- that's landlocked? Again- sarcasm?
This is landlocked:
Disneyland is land locked. Disney world or TL surrounded by acres and acres of green? Nah...
Look at aerials of universal Orlando and Disneyland and you can see just what both companies can do when space is a limitation. They maximize it. Disney world doesn't need to because they have plenty of land- including TL and BB.
And many of those acres of green may never be developable. Wetlands areas (a lot of the developable areas within WDW) are protected under federal law which PREVENTS them form being developed easily. Those that are developed often require and intense amount of work allow development. USO and DL don't really have to worry about this and can basically build out to the borders without the necessity of a buffer or worrying about the surrounding environment. WDW development does not have that luxury. Considering the large amount of property that Disney owns, the placement of TL and BB was in effect shoehorning it into relatively restricted parcels for expansion. Now as pointed out Disney can certainly go through the expense and hassle to expand into these areas, but the cost versus return is probably not their. In terms of their current land allotment BB and TL are pretty much out of developable space without a major reconfiguring their respective properties.
No sarcasm needed to prove you wrong.
flynnibus
Premium Member
It's not that B&W..
UNI has a problem in that they are not in a greenfield... they are surrounded by entities they do not control, property they do not own, and have limited leverage with the government besides being one of the best 'customers' in town.
WDW has a ton of property and huge buffers keeping the 'entities they do not control' largely at bay. They have elbow room.. with most of their barriers being themselves .. which means if there is enough desire, it can happen (like.. moving a road, or BoH). But as you highlight, just because WDW has the property, that doesn't mean its developable... **easily**. That's the key word. Issues like wetlands and conservation areas can be manipulated, offset, etc. WDW has to work with the regulating entities, but this is where WDW has the upperhand with RCID and their long standing practice with the other regulating entities. They've done land swaps and all kinds of remappings to get things done where they want. It's a matter of how much do they want it vs other property that may be less difficult to develop. A key advantage when you own a ton of something is.. its easy to do swaps.
Regulated just means you can't do what you want without involving others... it doesn't necessarily mean nothing can be done.
andysol
Well-Known Member
That's an awesome story, if it were true. The truth is, it isn't zoned for wetlands. In fact- all those trees behind the roads on your TL aerial are already zoned for use where they could expand tomorrow. So there's that.
Note: this map is prior to the 3k acre purchase of additional wetlands and redistribution freeing up an additional 350 acres of "dark green" on this map
Last edited: